Last time the person in charge of the debates rigged it in favor of Hillary, and ended up forming part of her campaign. In plain sight.

Has happened before, keeps happening.

No, but I think it’s within the realm of possibility that he delegated the rigging to someone who was. Declaring victory when results aren’t out is just hopelessly bizarre and demands a better explanation than overconfidence.

Yes.

He could be even more stupid to hire a company named Shadow Inc, that has ties to the DNC that could make him look complicit in any rigging should it happen. Was it smart? Definitely not. So stupid for one thing or another, still means stupid right?

Whatever Gremlinsinc assessment of Pete's intelligence is, the facts he just listed have very bad optics for Pete, the DNC and the Democrat party. If they again squeeze Bernie out of the nomination, any other candidate will not have a strong base of supporters.

Judging by how this election season went so far up to this point (including all the primary debates controversies [0]), it seems like DNC didnt learn anything and decided to double down on their previous efforts. I predict that Bernie is almost definitely going to get squeezed out.

0. Referring mostly to that one where they asked Bernie a question based on a made up quote regarding female president viability, and then proceeded asking further questions from other candidates treating that quote as a fact, despite Bernie explicitly denying it mere seconds before. And Bernie isn’t even my first choice candidate, but seeing all this happen just felt really surreal and unfair.

The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning. This, along with the delay in announcing the results, is all an effort to influence the outcomes of the upcoming primaries by showing false "momentum" in Iowa. If the official results aren't out, no one can prove him wrong yet.

This morning, above all other natural trending information on Twitter, Bloomberg had a tidal wave of articles promoted saying how good Iowa was for several candidates, none of which is supported by the data that I've seen. It seems Sanders won pretty substantially, and the DNC is trying to delay results to control the narrative long enough to get results from other states.

"The man gave a victory speech with no results in that show him winning"

The POTUS claimed his inauguration crowd size was far larger than it actually was.

Politicians talk big about polls that favor them ... often their own polls.

Giving a speech is PR, not a conspiracy.

And distrusting the DNC is not a conspiracy theory. A political party is free to choose its candidate however it pleases, and it came out that they tampered with the 2016 results. A few months ago, Obama was quoted saying that if Sanders appeared to be the pick that he'd "step in," whatever that's supposed to mean. The whole thing is a circus.

Distrust is one thing, implying a conspiracy is another.

There's a weird world of "Oh man here's all these mysterious connections... I'm not saying it is a conspiracy"... yeah you are.

His words were - "Looking at what happened last night, looking at all of the data that we've got, it was an extraordinary night and we are absolutely victorious coming into New Hampshire." That's not lying about turnout to a speech, its lying about the results of the political process.

Coupled with the "coin flip" shenanigans that were (fortunately) overturned, the DNC claiming the delay is for "quality control", and the fact that numbers STILL haven't been released, its fair to say something shady is in play here. How can "quality control" for a caucus be executed when everyone has left and gone home? If we can have the results of a national election cleared up in a single day, there's no reason it should be taking this long.

Also: we have all been taught to treat "conspiracy" as a dirty word. If multiple entities get together to do something shady, they have "conspired". That's "conspiracy". Do you also believe Jeffery Epstien killed himself? Because according to the authorities, any other story is "conspiracy theory".

I don't think that speech means anything more than the things I cited.

I feel like folks see something happen then hear a speech like they've never heard a campaign speech before and assume they're evidence of something...

When John McCain was being nominated he gave a speech saying that he "knows where Osama Bin Laden is".... nobody really believed it literally.